Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order insofar as it denied classification of the impugned micro-nutrient product as an "other fertilizer." Applying Chapter Note 6 to Ch.31 and relevant administrative guidance, the Tribunal held the product, containing essential fertilizing elements (including nitrogen and phosphorus as confirmed by chemical analysis), falls under CETH 3105 rather than as plant growth regulator under CETH 3808. The Tribunal treated the issue as periodical and endorsed the earlier bench's reasoning resolving the 2007-2011 period in the appellant's favour, thereby quashing the adverse portions of the impugned order.
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order insofar as it denied classification of the impugned micro-nutrient product as an "other fertilizer." Applying Chapter Note 6 to Ch.31 and relevant administrative guidance, the Tribunal held the product, containing essential fertilizing elements (including nitrogen and phosphorus as confirmed by chemical analysis), falls under CETH 3105 rather than as plant growth regulator under CETH 3808. The Tribunal treated the issue as periodical and endorsed the earlier bench's reasoning resolving the 2007-2011 period in the appellant's favour, thereby quashing the adverse portions of the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.